- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:16:27 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Apr 17, 2009, at 13:19 , Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Apr 17, 2009, at 13:24, Robin Berjon wrote: >> Trying to separate the discussion from the change request: would >> you be satisfied if requirements to perform C14N were removed and >> reliance on XSD data types for definition purposes were replaced >> with something less scary (though in this case this is a bit of a >> FUD argument Henri, the referenced types aren't overwhelming)? > > However, if that's not feasible, my next preferred option would > indeed be removing the requirement to perform canonicalization (i.e. > sign XML as binary with a detached traditional binary signature > block). I will let the digsig experts comment on the feasibility of this. > As for the data types, I'd be satisfied if the datatypes were > defined in such a way that attribute value parsing algorithms and > conversion methods that a browser engine has to contain anyway were > reusable. This should include well-defined behavior in the case of > non-conforming input. That's reasonable. > XSD which even allows leap seconds! I like leap seconds, they're nice! > (Is it a FUD argument that XSD dates deviate from the value space > that is typically used in Posix date conversions between multi-unit > tuples and epoch seconds?) No, that's not what I said. I know XSD painfully enough to know the monsters that lurk there, and generally support defining things without it if possible. I was referring to statements such as "unless widget impls are supposed to bring in huge off-the-shelf XSD machinery" when we're talking about ID, anyURI, string, integer, base64Binary, dateTime. These certainly have issues, but they can nevertheless be operated while drunk :) -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 13:17:05 UTC